I've demeaned the use of polls/surveys for a long time. It's even more disturbing that
Fox News has used those polls to decide who'd show up on the first televised Republican "debate".

WTF is going on?

What? It's not like we've hit a better mark for winnowing the field yet. How else do you want to do it? Or is it that you object to Trump getting any attention at all? He uses his money and media presence to buy attention, it's not like it has meaning, anymore than the Kardashians do. And he'll get about as far. You can't actually weed out the ridiculous candidates until the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire, not if they have money and the inclination to waste it this way. Since Trump did this last time, and with the Independents before that, he apparently feels he gets something out of it and maybe he's right. Maybe the profile boost actually generates a profit for his other enterprises.

Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

What? It's not like we've hit a better mark for winnowing the field yet. How else do you want to do it? Or is it that you object to Trump getting any attention at all? He uses his money and media presence to buy attention, it's not like it has meaning, anymore than the Kardashians do. And he'll get about as far. You can't actually weed out the ridiculous candidates until the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire, not if they have money and the inclination to waste it this way. Since Trump did this last time, and with the Independents before that, he apparently feels he gets something out of it and maybe he's right. Maybe the profile boost actually generates a profit for his other enterprises.

I'm not convinced that the best way to "winnow" the field is by using early caucus states in the first place. Iowa and New Hampshire aren't very good representatives of the nation as a whole. Neither is Florida, or the Carolinas, or Ohio for that matter.

One good thing Trump has highlighted.....is how fucked up our election processes are, and that our two-party political system isn't working so well in the 21st century.

I'm not convinced that the best way to "winnow" the field is by using early caucus states in the first place. Iowa and New Hampshire aren't very good representatives of the nation as a whole. Neither is Florida, or the Carolinas, or Ohio for that matter.

One good thing Trump has highlighted.....is how fucked up our election processes are, and that our two-party political system isn't working so well in the 21st century.

They don't need to be good representatives of the nation as a whole. No state is a good representative of the nation as a whole. Pennsylvania certainly isn't. But if you can't draw up a decent run in either of those two rather soft states, how are you supposed to do so elsewhere? Anyway, as I have repeatedly tried to explain to you in the past, none of this is actually a working of the US government or its election system. It's an activity by and for political parties, private (albeit quite large) organizations of people around loose collections of political ideas working together to try and collectively get each others views eventually made into public policy.

Our "two party system" isn't a formal system. It's an ad-hoc arrangement. A long-lasting one, but one that has no formal status. If people don't like it, they're free to stop participating and apply themselves to some other route.

Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

They don't need to be good representatives of the nation as a whole. No state is a good representative of the nation as a whole. Pennsylvania certainly isn't. But if you can't draw up a decent run in either of those two rather soft states, how are you supposed to do so elsewhere?

Anyway, as I have repeatedly tried to explain to you in the past, none of this is actually a working of the US government or its election system. It's an activity by and for political parties, private (albeit quite large) organizations of people around loose collections of political ideas working together to try and collectively get each others views eventually made into public policy.

I've repeatedly tried to say the same thing. But when I lament the use of Big Money and its control over the political process, it's no consolation when "compromise" is used as a dirty word.

Our "two party system" isn't a formal system. It's an ad-hoc arrangement. A long-lasting one, but one that has no formal status. If people don't like it, they're free to stop participating and apply themselves to some other route.

Throwing my name around is a lame and tiresome way to avoid answering the real questions, or addressing the real problems.

That's really no better than Lewk using a sports analogy to rail against women's rights.

Who is railing against women's rights? The only 'right' I'm railing against is the right to kill babies. And sports isn't an analogy it is an actual fact that men's sports team have been cut due to Title IX.

Feel kinda bad, Trumps popularity is destroying the image of the GOP by showing the racist ignorant core of its base, and with any luck he'll continue to make the entire party look like a laughing stock long enough to throw the election, even with all the recent gerrymandering. But it also means nothing constructive is going to come out of this election that wasn't instigated by the Dems. The GOP created him, they'll have to deal with him, and with any luck having him run as a 3rd party ticket will finally push the GOP to cut away the dead weight thats put that party into a tailspin.

Whats amazing is that the other candidates are lowering themselves to his level, challenging him to arm wrestling matches and destroying cellphones as publicity stunts.

Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 08-05-2015 at 02:02 PM.

"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

He has no natural base. He has no campaign infrastructure. He doesn't have good advisors. No chance he wins the primary.

I only said "best", I didn't say he was the most likely contender what I'm referring to is the fact that the others seem to be even greater asshats/scumbags than Trump who seems, based on the little I've seen of him, to be somewhat progressive when it comes to social matters.

“Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
— Bill Gates

I only said "best", I didn't say he was the most likely contender what I'm referring to is the fact that the others seem to be even greater asshats/scumbags than Trump who seems, based on the little I've seen of him, to be somewhat progressive when it comes to social matters.

The others aren't explicitly racist and sexist. As for Trump, he's already changed his position on most social issues.

I only said "best", I didn't say he was the most likely contender what I'm referring to is the fact that the others seem to be even greater asshats/scumbags than Trump who seems, based on the little I've seen of him, to be somewhat progressive when it comes to social matters.

That's sheer lack of knowledge on your part. Trump is more of a scumbag/asshat than a number of the others (I won't say all, but definitely quite a few of them), trust me.

Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

That's sheer lack of knowledge on your part. Trump is more of a scumbag/asshat than a number of the others (I won't say all, but definitely quite a few of them), trust me.

I can't think of any I'd choose Trump over. Carson and Fiorina would be equally useless in governing. Jindal is equally opportunistic. Graham is equally likely to start a world war. Trump's decision-making process is so insane that there's no way in hell I'd trust him over any of the others.

I believe Trump is in this to force Bush to do things that will help Bush win. Trump will bring out the crazy in all the other candidates while hoping Bush will stay within the lines. Like I said this is "Celebrity Presidential Candidates". Not much different than Celebrity Apprentice.

I don't think he's the best by a long shot, he just has one of the most well-known names. Once the decision starts to become serious he'll be just a flash in the pan I hope.

As happened last time with loads of GOP people who briefly sparkled as the favourite before crashing and burning. Remember the likes of such soaring successes as Herman Cain and Rick Perry? Or throwbacks like Newt Gringrich?

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.